This matter
came to be heard on May 17, 2002 in the matter of Paul Dennis Ziegler, Jr.,
VSB Docket No. 01-010-2534 before a panel of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary
Board convened in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
Tweed Courtroom, Tenth and Main Streets, Fourth Floor, Richmond, Virginia
23219 and composed of Randy I. Bellows, Second Vice Chair, presiding, James
L. Banks, Jr., Werner H. Quasebarth, Anthony J. Trenga and H. Taylor Williams,
IV. The Virginia State Bar appeared through Assistant Bar Counsel, Edward
L. Davis. The Respondent, Paul Dennis Ziegler, Jr., appeared through
his counsel, Stephen J. Burgess. The matter was presented to the Disciplinary
Board by way of a Certification of the First District Subcommittee.
Based on the stipulations and evidence presented, the Board issued a public
reprimand and in support of that public reprimand issues the following opinion
and findings.

The Bar alleged the following facts:

1. At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Paul Dennis Ziegler,
Jr. (hereinafter “Ziegler” or “Respondent”) has been
an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

2. On October 23, 2000, the Respondent stole a wristwatch valued at $49.95
from the Andrews Air Force Exchange, Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, by
placing the watch in his shorts pocket, walking to the checkout counter where
he paid for another item, and exiting the exchange without paying for the
watch. A loss prevention officer observed him in the Exchange, and followed
him outside of the Exchange, where he found him at the food court tinkering
with the watch. The loss prevention officer continued to observe the
Respondent at the food court for about four minutes, and then apprehended
him.

3. The Respondent, an officer in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s
Corps at the time, was charged with larceny, in violation of Article 121,
Uniform Code of Military Justice. In lieu of trial by court-martial,
his command offered him Non-Judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, an administrative procedure. The Respondent
consented to this procedure, and the presiding officer found the evidence
sufficient to sustain the charge of larceny. He imposed a punitive letter
of reprimand as punishment. The Respondent did not appeal the decision.

Based
on these allegations, the Bar alleged a violation of Rule 8.4(b) and (c) of
the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, as revised. Those
provisions provide as follows:

RULE 8.4
Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to:

(b)
commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on
the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; and

By stipulation, and without objection, the Bar’s and Respondent’s
Exhibits were admitted into evidence, including a store security videotape
of the Respondent engaging in the conduct at issue, the admission of which
was stipulated to by the parties. The Bar called the Respondent, Paul
Dennis Ziegler, Jr. as its only witness.

The Respondent
is a Lieutenant in the Judge Advocates Corp. of the United States Navy.
He testified that on the day in question he entered the Base Exchange (“BX”)
to look at wristwatches. After looking at a number of watches, he put
one on his wrist and then later put it in his right pocket as he continued
to look at others. Eventually, he proceeded to the cashier where he
paid for headphones that he had also selected, but not the watch. From
the cashier, he walked into the adjacent food court where he purchased some
food and beverage and while standing in line realized for the first time that
he had placed the watch in his pocket and had not paid for it. Although
he testified that he intended to return to the BX to pay for the watch, he
proceeded to a table in the food court, took the watch out of his left pocket
and began adjusting it. After some observation, security guards approached
him and escorted him back into the BX.

The Respondent
chose an Article 15 “Captain’s Mast,” as a result of which
the presiding officer found the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge
of larceny and issued a letter of reprimand as a punishment. As a result
of this punishment, the Respondent has concluded that his career as a Naval
officer is effectively over since it is unlikely that he would be promoted
in the future. Recognizing his prospects, the Respondent has tendered
his letter of resignation to the Navy, which, once effective, will result
in an honorable discharge from the Navy.

After the Bar rested its case, the Respondent moved to strike the alleged
violations of Rule 8.4(b) and (c). After argument and deliberation,
the Board granted Respondent’s motion to strike the Bar’s allegation
of a violation of Rule 8.4(c), but denied his motion as to the alleged violation
of Rule 8.4(b).

Respondent called three witnesses, Jerome S. Blackman, M.D., a Board certified
psychiatrist, Commander Robert J. Orr, III, JAGC, USN, and Lieutenant Commander
Monte DeBoer, JAGC, USN. Dr. Blackman testified that he had seen the
Respondent twice, once on July 19, 2001 and again on April 8, 2002.
Based on his evaluation, Dr. Blackman opined that Respondent had no criminal
intent, but rather because of certain life experiences it is likely that his
conduct was motivated at some level by a desire to get caught and to be punished
and in that sense it was not inadvertent, although it was not with the specific
intent to commit a theft. Commander Orr and Lt. Commander DeBoer testified
consistently to Respondent’s good character and reputation and that
Respondent was an outstanding lawyer and Naval officer, whose work was exemplary
in all respects and that the alleged conduct was completely out of character.
Also presented and prepared to testify were Rear Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby,
USN, Captain Stephen Barker, USN, Commander Mike Palmer, JAGC, USNR, Anita
Polen, Esq., and Chaplain Michael Znffoletto, Chaplain, USN; and the parties
stipulated that were these persons called they would testify that they had
worked with the Respondent, that he had done competent work and they would
work with him again.

Based on all the evidence and after substantial deliberation, with substantial
weight given to the conduct of the Respondent as evidenced in the videotape,
the Board concluded that the Bar had proven by clear and convincing evidence
that the Respondent had committed a crime or a deliberately wrongful act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness
as a lawyer in violation of Rule 8.4(b). The Respondent has no prior
disciplinary record and after hearing argument from both the Bar and the Respondent,
the Board concluded that an appropriate sanction under all the circumstances
was a public reprimand.

Whereupon it is:

ORDERED
pursuant to Part 6, Section IV, Paragraph 13(C)(6)(c)(iii) of the Rules of
the Virginia Supreme Court that Paul Dennis Ziegler, Jr. receive, and hereby
does receive, a public reprimand, which shall be published forthwith, as appropriate;
it is

FURTHER
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Disciplinary System send an attested and true
copy of this Opinion and Order to Respondent, Paul Dennis Ziegler, Jr., by
Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested at his address of record with the
Virginia State Bar, 3604 Elkton Drive, Chesapeake, VA 23221 and to Edward
L. Davis, Assistant Bar Counsel, Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main Street,
Suite 1500, Richmond, VA 23219-2800. Leslie Etheredge of Inge Snead
& Associates, 4444 Arrowhead Road, Richmond, VA 23235, (804) 272-7054,
was the reporter for the hearing and transcribed the proceedings.

The Clerk
of the Disciplinary System shall assess costs pursuant to Part 6, § IV,
¶ 13(K)(10) of the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court.